The lines are clearly drawn, more so today than ever before, the Left clearly favors an American loss in Iraq. As I stated in an earlier post today, I knew more Dems would crawl out of the woodwork and Ms. Pelosi kindly obliged. Reciting the usual list of anti-war grievances she manages to do what her vote two weeks ago steadfastly refused to do: Support the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and surrender the country to terrorists, and civil war...

"We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."

How does losing a war make the U.S. Safer? How does handing Iraq over to the terrorists make that country more stable? She's lost it... I mean the Democratic war for political power, not her sanity-- although her decision to support a cut and run policy could be construed as a bout of insanity.

Bill Kristol sees Ms. Pelosi's poorly reasoned rebuttal as perhaps the surest sign Republicans will retain control of the House next fall. He's more optimistic than I am in this regard, but he knows a lot more than I do, and travels in circles I do not.

"Until now, it seemed to me more likely than not that Democrats would win back the House in 2006... I now think that unlikely. Pelosi's endorsement today of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq makes the House Democrats the party of defeat, the party of surrender. Bush's strong speech today means the GOP is likely to be -- if Republican Congressmen just keep their nerve -- the party of victory."

The Democratic party is completely fractured over this issue. One faction -- a very small faction consisting of Lieberman and perhaps a few others -- says "stay the course." Then there's the confused faction of John Kerry-- a somewhat larger faction --that can't seem to make up its mind one week to the next what course of action to support. There's the hardliners, like Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, who know exactly what they support and why -- to see America lose at any cost, to damage a sitting president, and regain political power. There are a few, like Dick Durbin who, like the proverbial sycophantic mouthpiece, want only to please their masters, and perhaps gain ascendancy on their coat tails.

"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday embraced a call by a prominent member of her rank-and-file to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, two weeks after she declined to endorse it."

Ms. Sidoti clearly sees Ms. Pelosi's speech for what it is: A call for withdrawal, and defeat. All America needs to do is remain resolved and push for a win-- and consequently, success in Iraq --and the GOP can't lose. This is the oddest strategy for political victory I've ever heard of: Win political power by losing a win-able war. Hell, It worked for them with Vietnam.

But Iraq is no Vietnam, and the Dems haven't yet caught on to that. Their stategy makes no sense! How can Democrats ever be trusted again after embracing such a despicable and cowardly policy?

It would seem Democrats just can't make up their minds. Vehemently against the war... No, strike that... Vehemently against the President. But today, Democrats seem to be back-pedaling. At least Kerry is, but then, he never could make up his mind about anything; voting for a war before voting against it... Claiming Saddam was a threat before claiming he was no threat at all. Claiming the President was doing the right thing by ousting Saddam before calling the president a liar.

Even Ms. Couric kept quiet while the Master Bloviator Mr. O'Reilly railed against the sleeping masses who can't seem to see the importance of winning in Iraq... "this is a war, this is WWIII. Everyone watching today: this is WWIII!"-- A bit melodramatic, but certainly a valid argument. The problem with the media however-- and to a lesser degree, Democratic politicians --is their complete investment in America losing the war. They have so harped on America's lack of progress in Iraq (a flat out lie) over the last 2 years, that any attempt to move toward America succeeding would paint them as idiots. Or at the very least, blind to reality, neither of which is a desireable position to find oneself in. But it's true: The press deliberately mischaracterizes the American 'successes' in Iraq. Rather than giving credit for successes, they focus only on death, body counts, and car/homicide bomb(er)s. Nothing about schools, infrastructure, political successes.

This is how they expect to win their own war; the war to discredit and pull down an American President they view as illegitimate. Didn't you know?!? Bush lost to Al Gore in 2000! Yep, he stole the election! Nevermind the fact that it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election.

It would seem Democrats can't win unless America loses. And interestingly enough they recognize their dilemma. Their only hope is to somehow pilot that wreck they're on to some safe harbor. Will it be a proud victorious American Port? Or a weakened demoralized American Port? It's too early yet to tell; their compass is sure-nuff busted, so which port they eventually make, still remains to be seen.

Tony, after a short meeting with the Production Supervisor, entered the control-room and proceeded to clean out his box. I looked at him and said, "Dude. Why are you cleaning out your box? You're scaring me." At which point he turned around and said to the whole room, something like, "It's been nice, see ya!"

What is known:

--Supervisor comes in and says Tony has been fired. --News Director says, shortly thereafter, that Tony quit. --And not much else.

Who to believe... I'll go with the News Director. I know Tony well enough to say he'd quit at the slightest hint of being "railroaded" [a term which could be viewed as subjective on my part, however, I am speaking in terms of what I know about Tony. And based on what I know of Tony, he would quit before being fired if he thought he was being unfairly attacked. Then again, I was not present at this meeting]. Ergo, claiming to have fired someone "after the fact" being a cowardly way to save face, I have to err on the word of the News Director.

Let's not parse or mince words here. I understand that when someone quits their job, the company then terminates that employees employment, via paperwork and other such niceties, but this is not the same as firing an employee. To then come out and say that "so-and-so" has been fired... Well, this is worlds away from "fine-line" territory. I imagine being on the wrong side of such a distiction could very well carry with it the possibility of legal action. But this is America, each person is an individual, and sadly, cannot be muzzled without severe consequence to everyones freedoms. And it's not my place to take sides here. Nor will I.

As to circumstances? Without observation/testimony from Mr. McCannon, I cannot say, or even speculate. It's enough that I've posted on this subject at all. Having done so could very well come back to bite me in the arse.

So why post at all? I began typing. This is the result. And I'm not inclined to backspace here; this is my forum, and the last time I checked, I still live in the United States of America.

And I can comfort myself with that fact when I find myself in the unemployment line.

Another Bush bashing liberal in the CBS anchor chair? Say it isn't so! It's still speculation at this point, but the rumors have merit, and it would change the face of the CBS Evening News.

She's a lot easier to look at than Bob, but I'm not sure I can stand watching/hearing her 5 nights a week. Somehow I doubt our parent network will take my misgivings into consideration during their Courtship of Ms. Couric.

Well, the person they fired deserved to be, but the perpetrator of that infamous black "X" over V.P. Cheney's face last week needs to go too. Though CNN has now demonstrated it has a modicum of class, there's still time to demonstrate to everyone they have much more... Fire the one responsible and apologize on camera, in prime time. What's left of their credibility is at stake.

Being a fan of Enya, I keep hoping each time she releases a new work that it will match Watermark or Shepherd Moons but they never do. That's not to say her CD's since haven't been exceptional... they're just not Watermark's or Shepherd Moons. It's a bit like comparing Abbey Road to Revolver, they're both excellent, but not the same.

And so Amarantine is different. I guess I'm still hoping for reprises of Cursum Perficio, and Afer Ventus. Instead she gives us Less Than a Pearl and Long Long Journey; two wonderfully satisfying songs that only hint at what lies beyond.

Unlike The Beatles, Floyd, and many many others, Enya changes little if at all in Amarantine, and I find that warmly comforting.

I'd buy it again if someone ripped it off. That alone should say something.

What has he done? Really. A stint on Saturday Night Live? A brief part in Cone Heads? He has a semi-long list of credits but little of it, besides SNL, is actual face-time. He has a few contributing credits, like writing, and producing, but in regard to quality, I highly doubt he'll ever rank up there with the likes of Oscar B. Demille.

The one thing he does have is friends in the entertainment business, and an opinion. Is he even funny?

This time last week I was on my way to the emergency room with a fluttering heart and sick to my stomach. I was sluggish, and exhausted-- every time my heart flutters it's as though someone has pulled the plug on any energy stores I had at that time; not a good feeling. This whole heart fluttering business was nothing new to me, as I've had to deal with it since my first trip to the hospital a year and a half ago. Funny thing is, I had no such symptoms until the ones that first put me in emergency room.

Turns out-- as my new doctor informed me --I'm diabetic; type 2 with slight high blood pressure. Okay, I can deal. Or at least try-- not like I had much choice. The deal though came with my new prescription for Avandia and Altace [Amaryl came later]. The Avandia worked like half a charm in getting my blood sugar down from 250+ to within the 170 range, and that's when Amaryl was added to the mix. The problem though, was now my heart fluttered in my chest quite uncomfortably, reducing me often to a drooling idiot, spent and ready to just pass out.

This is where I was last Saturday/Sunday. Now here's where it gets interesting.

I admit I never bothered to study the information sheets that came with my prescriptions [I've glanced them over on occasion, but never studied them], I never thought it necessary. Then a few weeks ago I actually pored over it...

"POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS: NO COMMON SIDE EFFECTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED with the proper use of this medicine. CHECK WITH YOUR DOCTOR AS SOON AS POSSIBLE if you experience unusual tiredness or weakness. CONTACT YOUR DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY if you experience the following side effects: nausea; vomiting; stomach pain; fatigue; loss of appetite; unusual thirst; unusual amount of urine; dark urine; rapid weight gain; bloating or swelling of ankles, feet, or hands; chest pain; or shortness of breath..."

Naturally, the "chest pains" part of that concerned me-- of lesser concern was my weight gain, tiredness, and shortness of breath, but I thought little of it. Just two days before my recent trip to Emergency I see a new ad for Avandia on television. Not the one with Della Reese hyping how wonderful the drug is, but the new style; the ones that offer a laundry list of negative side effects for most of the commercial.

"...do not take Avandia if you have a history of heart failure..."

"...May cause heart failure... Weight gain... liver damage..."

And then it struck me... My first trip to the hospital last year was undoubtedly due to high blood pressure and high blood sugar, but what kept sending me back was the Avandia.

A "relapse" just 5 months after my initial hospital stay earned me a heart catheterization-- not a pleasant procedure at all, one that the consent forms claimed could result in death! And there I was again last Saturday, trying to get a grasp on what was happening to me. The heart cath showed no-- I repeat, NO blockage in the arteries to my heart, so what gives? It must be the Avandia.

I'm not a doctor, that should go without saying, but I'm not a dim bulb either. I can put two and two together. So I stopped taking the Avandia. Last Saturday's dose was my last. I've now gone 7 days without that pill, and guess what? No heart fluttering, loads more energy. This by no means proves my assumption, but until the palpitations return this is the assumption I'm operating on.

How does one go from relatively healthy one week to being a pill-popping physical derelict the next? Something's not right here. And the only factor that's different is the pills, and the diet.

This past week I've been going to websites and bulletin boards looking for confirmation of what I've experienced. And I found enough for me to resolve never taking Avandia again. Doctor Johnson may not like it, but this is my body; my life at stake. He can offer to prescribe something else, and I may opt in, but I intend going the natural route. My diabetes is not so entrenched (according to Dr. Johnson) that I can't "back out" of it.

That's my Avandia deal. Nothing I've vented here should be considered by anyone else taking this drug to be reason to stop taking it themselves; consult your doctor if you have reservations about Avandia. For me, I don't believe diabetes is entirely incurable. For some with diabetes, a cure is out of the question at this point in time, but not for me. According to the doctor I can take control and kiss the drugs goodbye.

Now for the Rant...

Why would any drug maker want to see disease cured? Imagine the billions in revenue they would lose if disease could be cured? It took 5,000+ years to cure Leprosy, and that's undoubtedly due a lack of medical knowledge for 99% of that time. Do you mean to tell me we can't cure Diabetes? Cancer? AIDS? I don't believe this. The human body can fight off these diseases. The human body is so resilient. It then, quite simply, becomes a question of whether or not one chooses to do what it takes to give their body a fighting chance.

Granted, some diseases can become so entrenched that drastic measures, in turn, become necessary. But ask yourself this one question: Why is America so increasingly Obese? Obesity was not the problem it is today a mere 50 years ago. What about our diet has changed? What's in our food today, that wasn't there 50 years ago?

I think it's safe to say that much of America's growing health problems are due to the change in America's diet. Pollution? Free Radicals? Sure they account for some of it, but not to the proportions we see today; so much so we've labeled it epidemic. I believe we are killing ourselves every time we sit down to eat. I intend to change that. I don't pretend it will be easy. I won't lie and say I'll never eat this, or that again. But I will make more of an effort to feed my body what it really needs, rather than what it really wants.

Most noted for his role as Mr. Miyagi in the spate of Katate Kid films, and Arnold from Happy Days, how many remember him in Midway? or that old Don Knotts film The Shakiest Gun in the West?

What I remember most of Mr. Morita is, of course, his Karate Kid role; for his pithy wisdom, "wax on.... wax off." Looking back on that first film I can't help but get the image of a "Japanese Yoda" out of my head: wise, patient, enigmatic... but not green. It wouldn't surprise me if that was the writer's intent all along in writing Mr. Miyagi's dialog.

Years ago, when I was studying karate myself, Mr. Morita was a guest of our dojo (sadly, before my time), as he was a friend of Grand Master Shoshin Nagamine, our dojo's patron/benefactor. I'm not at all sure how much Karate Mr. Morita actually knew, but to my understanding, you would never know how much a real Karate-man knows anyway, as he views his craft more as a lifestyle than a source of bragging rights. As the axiom goes; The Novice finds it necessary to brag of his prowess, the Master does not.

Until I moved in and began manning this outpost, I had never heard of Victor Davis Hanson. But I knew a good writer when I came across one-- Cormac McCarthy and Ray Bradbury come quickly to mind. I've quoted Mr. Hanson more than once here, and it's always been his exceptional insight that's compelled me to do so. Today is no different.

Slogging through Mr. Hanson's careful re-examination of all the particulars that brought us to last Friday will bring you to the following excerpt where Mr. Hanson nails it on the head, as usual.

"Yet as [Democrats] hedge -- on television praising Congressmen Murtha who advocates withdrawal, but making sure they vote overwhelmingly on the record to reject his advice -- they should consider some critical questions.

"First, are the metrics of this war in the terrorists' or our favor? Are the Iraqi security forces growing or shrinking? Are elections postponed or on schedule? Are Europe, Jordan, Lebanon, and others more or less sympathetic to a war against Islamic terrorism in Iraq? Are bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Zarqawi more or less popular or secure after we removed Saddam? Is al Qaeda in a strengthened or weakened position? Is the Arab world more or less receptive to democracy in the Gulf, Egypt, Lebanon, and the West Bank? And is the United States more or less vulnerable to a terrorist attack as we go into our fifth year since September 11?"

Perhaps unintentional by Howard Fineman of Newsweek in his latest article, "Bush at the Tipping Point." While attempting to highlight problems for the Bush Administration surrounding the Iraq War, Fineman points out what most on the right already knew; The Democratic Leadership, not content with the level of smear their Campaign of Lies had leveled upon the Bush Administration, choreographed the whole Murtha episode hoping another smear might propel them, and their non-existent agenda into the forefront. This was to have been the event that would see Bush face down in the "quagmire" with the DNC's boot squarely on his neck. But it backfired on them.

It's perfectly legitimate for anyone to criticize the war policy of any president, but what politicians did for Vietnam, they did for Lebanon, for Somalia, and are now trying yet again to lose the current effort in Iraq-- they only know how to lose.

Democrats have not won a war since WWII, and quite frankly, I don't see that they have the stomach for doing what needs doing now. Their only solution seems to be to quit the field; allow Radical Islam to have its day. They want America to lose, so they can heap more disdain and vitriol on Bush. They would rather lose the war than see a day when George W. Bush would be praised for his accomplishments in winning a very win-able war...

"Thomas P. (Tip) O'Neill. No liberal on defense, in 1967 O'Neill had stunned President Lyndon B. Johnson by telling him that the Vietnam War had become a lost cause. Now, Murtha mused, it was his turn to confront a president with harsh truths.

"Which was precisely what the Democratic leadership wanted Murtha to do. A close ally, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, was anxious to open a second axis of attack on Iraq - and was aware of his growing antagonism toward the war. The two met and agreed that he would make his case in private to the party conference. After that, on his own, he would introduce a resolution calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Pelosi and the other liberals would keep their distance, while their own Marine charged up the Hill. Framed by long rows of American flags at a press conference, he denounced the Iraq war as a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

"Murtha had known he would set off an explosion. He did. His arrival on the House floor was greeted with cheers from fellow Democrats, by dagger glances from Republicans. A near riot ensued. An Ohio backbencher named Jean Schmidt, eager to demonstrate coldbloodedness, was given time by GOP leaders to relate a phone call from a Marine whom she said wanted "to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Furious Democrats charged down the aisles, fists in the air, shouting that Schmidt's words had to be stricken from the record. "You guys are pathetic!" yelled Rep. Martin Meehan of Massachusetts, while Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee charged into the GOP side to confront them. The melee was so intense that it brought the soothing presence of Rep. Tom DeLay from his secure undisclosed location, and Schmidt eventually apologized. By a vote of 403-3, the House ultimately rejected a bowdlerized version of Murtha's resolution, which the GOP had crafted (without Murtha's permission) to sound as cravenly antiwar as possible. Seeing the obvious trap, virtually every Democrat, including Murtha, voted against it..." [emphasis added]

And of course there's Fineman's slanted perspective at the end: It's the GOP who "crafted", who acted "cravenly," and the Dems who wisely sensed a "trap". Furthermore, why does anyone need Murtha's permission? A resolution is a resolution, whoever writes it.

However much the Left wants to glom onto Murtha's "earliest practical date" phrase fails to see that the resolution as a whole was a recipe for failure, and a war lost. Presitige lost, Honor lost, American lives lost... in vain. Quite simply, Murtha's resolution was a "flawed policy wrapped in an illusion."

Mr. Fineman's entitled to his perspective, however flawed it happens to be, but we don't have to take him at his word. He see's Truth differently than those of us on the Right. And that's fine. He can choose to be a deluded hack if he wants.

"We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."

--North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, 1990________

"...But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia whereafter vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the " heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the " chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu."

--Usama bin LadenFrom, "Declaration of War Against the Americans..."August 23, 1996________

"Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."

--Usama bin Laden,Interviewed for ABC, by John Miller, 1998________

"There's no military solution. Some of them will tell you [that] to get [warlord Mohamed Farrah] Aidid is the solution. I don't agree with that."

"Our welcome has been worn out,"

--Congressman John Murtha(D, PA), NBC's "Today" showSeptember 1993, one month after 4 U.S. Military Personnel were killed in Somalia. Murtha announced that President Clinton had been... "listening to our suggestions. And I think you'll see him move those troops out very quickly."________

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region."

--Congressman John Murtha(D, PA)November 17, 2005

Personal Note: It would seem Democrats have nothing to offer but surrender, defeat, pullout, coitus interruptus...

Yesterday, during CNN's coverage of Vice President Cheney's speech at the American Enterprise Institute, addressing the political critics of the Iraq War, a mysterious large black "X" flashed over the Vice President's face several times. This was in no way an accident.

There is absolutely no way a "X" can sporadically appear on anyone's face on live television by "technological malfunction", as CNN would have us believe, especially when it flashes on and off for less than a second at a time. Someone in the control room has to physically position [and by 'physically' I mean by use of Chyron, or TypeDeko or another such graphics program] the graphical image and deliberately key the image over the live feed; something that is not done by the graphics operator [the keying itself; that goes through the directors board], but by the director, and with the directors full knowledge. I know this because I work in television. We put on 3 shows a day, except on weekends, and I highly doubt that CNN's operations are performed significantly different than our own... The Director is in charge, and in full control of what goes out on the air.

Someone should lose their job over this, and probably will; without fanfare, or a burning need by CNN to publicly acknowledge the event, or even apologize. The Bush-Haters and Liberals feel they can do as they wish without impugnity. And for the most part, they're right. The public rarely, if ever, cares to challenge their ethics. It's sad what we've come to.

"The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of 'Bush lied' are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country."

...was fought on the floor of the House of Representatives last night. I'm not going to belabor you with my take on last night proceedings-- though I'll certainly inject some --what I will do is share some telling reaction from several others who had lots to say about last nights showdown.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I don't care much for Liberalism. Liberalism, as it currently manifests itself, is a disease; a cancer; a blight on the face of this nation. And it must be Excised. But again, as stated in previous posts, Ideals are not so easily killed. Instead, ideals-- like some viruses --must be allowed to run their course, until such time the body can adapt and shrug it off. Of course, sometimes the body dies, or is irreparably damaged, but without a vaccine-- a greater, more powerful Ideal --what other choice is there?

Which is where we find ourselves this morning. The virus of Liberalism has been coursing through the veins of this nation for quite a long while, but it appears the fever may now be breaking. Democracy may yet be saved in this nation. The Democratic party, however, is all but hopeless. A new Ideal must be built in the minds of its adherents if it "hopes" to survive what's coming.

A lot of Opinion is raining down in America this morning, not unlike atomic fallout in that every brow dirtied with ash is sullied, burned, and the potential for damage too great to be ignored.

"Let's recap what happened last night. After months of publicly berating President Bush as a liar over pre-war intel and after invoking a rarely used rule to shut down the Senate two weeks ago, Democrats are crying foul because....? Because Republicans challenged them to stop trying to have it both ways on Iraq after a leading, well-respected member of the Democratic party came out and called for the immediate withdrawal of troops.

Did the resolution contain the language the most Democrats would have liked? No. But politics ain't beanbag (which the Dems have shown by the examples listed above) and the bottom line is that you have to win elections if you want to control the process.

That being said, you'd have to be a fool to believe there are only three Democrats in the House who support the language of the resolution offered last night to bring the troops home immediately. At the top of the list is Nancy Pelosi who, instead of voting her conscience and representing her constituents, decided to play victim and accuse Republicans of "politicizing the war" - something she's been doing non-stop for more than two years now.

Wanting to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq doesn't make you a coward. What does make you a coward is when you truly believe we should get our troops out of Iraq immediately, you have a chance to vote for doing exactly that, and you choose not to because you fear the political consequences of being on record revealing your position to the public. This was not a vote on some obscure provision of the budget, it was the most supremely important subject on which members of Congress have the privilege and duty to vote.

So hats off to Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York for having the courage to vote what they really believe. And shame on those who didn't."

Not a particularly glowing endorsement of Democrats, I'd say. But it's a game they wanted to play, and when it came to "put up, or shut up" they chose to hang their heads and shut up. I know I'm belaboring the point, but all this goes back to Democratic inability to accept their loss of the 2000 Presidential election. All symptoms point to that event.

Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation...

The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation...

In the coming weeks and months The Nation will help identify--and encourage support for--those candidates prepared to bring a speedy end to the war and to begin the hard work of forging a new national security policy that an end to the Iraq War will make possible."

A colleague at work is reading Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?", which isn't surprising; he actually believes there's nothing wrong with robbing the rich through higher taxes simply because they can afford to pay a higher rate, because the poor are so pitifully unable to fend for themselves, and the rich... They are so mean and greedy. In effect, Success is to be punished, and under-achieving rewarded.

What liberal Media? Well, The Nation for one, who has completely lost any shred of objectivity. It's one thing for a Paper to endorse a candidate, but it's quite another for a Paper, or News "outfit" to openly state as its mission an active search for a worthy and proper candidate, one who espouses its own ideals.

Papers do not enter voting booths, people do.

What happens when The Nation finds its Ideal man or woman? How ethical is it for a news organization to actively campaign for a specific candidate, like the Big 3 did for Mister's Gore, and Kerry? What happens to such organizations? They lose their credibility. What Liberal Media, Indeed!

What sort of country does Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid think we live in?

"President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove must stop the orchestrated attack campaign they launched on Veteran's Day," the Nevada senator said this week. "It's a weak, spineless display of politics at a time of war."

So it is "spineless politics" for a president to defend himself from critics who charge that he lied to the American public in leading them into war?

And this is the Lie of the Democratic Party: "We can claim as true whatever we wish to be true, but you have no right to question our assertions, our motives or our truths." hypocrites!!!

If Democrats were interested in Truth they'd stand behind the President in this war effort. Not for any political advantage they might achieve, but because it's the right thing to do. What surer way to achieve political strength than to demonstrate one's resolve to do what is right in the face of media distortion, and sagging public approval? Conviction wins battles, and strength. Not "any way the wind blows" politics; which is what the current Democratic Party practices.

Democrats, who hammered away at the President, and this nation for quite some time now, have found their hand called. As it turns out there was nothing of significance in the cards they held; only innuendo, distortion, and lies-- things they gleefully attached in epithet to President Bush. But the Bush Presidency isn't dead, despite all the rumors to the contrary. The Democratic Party is proven to be a bad card player, vindictive shrills, and disinterested in truth. They care only for power.

Patriotism, despite Mr. Kerry's inference to the contrary, is not defined by the wearing of our military's uniform, it is defined by the actions and words of the patriot. Mr. Murtha is indeed a veteran, and a heroic one at that, and I have no doubt he feels patriotic toward his nation and its military, but Patriotism is transitory, fleeting. It changes with the tide, the day, the waning of strength and years. As resolve gives way patriotism is eroded, and soon replaced with defeatism. That is where the Modern Democratic Party is today. They give token lip service to America's "shining city on a hill" status, but demonstrate by their actions their belief that America is lost.

Vietnam was lost because of Congressional resolve, or lack thereof, which transferred its defeatism to, and eroded public support for, the war. We lost that war not because of superior enemy numbers, but because of inferior American leaders. If we lose this war, it won't be because of a superior enemy, it will be because an inferior party, and a media establishment that knowingly discourages and disparages our Armed Forces and the nation as a whole, that emboldens our enemy, and demoralizes our military-- to say nothing of what it is doing to this nations collective psyche. We will lose far more than a war, if Democrats are allowed to continue their war against America's best interests.

Want an accurate assessment of why the War on Islamic Extremists, and our current effort in Iraq is not only necessary, but the right thing to do? Check out A Brief History of a Long War (Iraq, 1990-2003) at the Mudville Gazette. It's a long, but rewarding read.

After two and half hours of House Debate on C-SPAN last night-- time that would otherwise have been spent watching our stations programming (CBS), I couldn't help but think this event was an Important Battle in this current, politically bloody national debate. The booing, and cat-calls were so very British, I was struck by how uncivil it all was. But then that's just what this whole Iraq War debate has been-- uncivil. And while our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan face death each and every moment on the front line, one party seeks to undermine their effort for political expediency, while the other seeks to protect the efficacy of the blood that has already been spilled for a cause that any rational thinking person would call worthy.

If the Iraqi people ultimately fail to create a democratic, free nation, free of the tyranny of Islamic Extremism, it can't be because we cut and run. If Iraq fails it must be because of their own efforts after we've given them every tool and advantage for success. To do less would dishonor the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform, and this Great Nation we lovingly call America.

For being the very liars they accuse the President of being, and using their lies to forward their personal political agenda's at the expense of American military personnel serving in Iraq and elsewhere; aiding and abetting America's enemies by undermining America's national security; and using their status as U.S. Senators to maliciously undermine a sitting President.

The evidence is irrefutable.

The following article/OpEd clearly lays out the evidence.

Call them what they are -- TRAITORSby Mark M. AlexanderNov 19, 2005

On the heels of the "White House-CIA leak" investigation, which concluded that no laws were broken (but which resulted in straw-grasping charges against Lewis Libby, the Vice President's chief of staff), liberals are attempting to parlay that non-starter into a much bigger political brawl.

Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he "lied us into war." Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.

Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous.

Personal Note: I could roll our a very long list of people I think are traitors to this nation, as I'm sure my critics could on the other side-- though it would, at best, be farcical. But I'm not going to do that. It's enough that Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin, and Harry Reid are added today.

There's still a lot of empty wood in the old hoary tree, and lots of names to get to. Patience is the order of the day.

Professor of English John Daly of Warren Community College in Herndon Virginia, for the following statement:

"Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs"

--emphasis mine

If this is what comes of Liberal Philosophy, then America is in serious trouble. Not only is the War on Terror a fight from which we cannot run, avoid or lose, now we have to wage war on another front-- American Liberalism. Not only is this philosophy a blight in the minds of those who espouse it, but America will suffer an ignoble death, and soon, unless Liberalism is euthanised from the American consciousness. But as previously stated, only a larger more powerful Ideal can crush this ideal. And I'm not so certain Conservatism is up to the task. Liberalism will ultimately destroy this country, of this I have no doubt.

Here is the full unedited text of Professor Daly’s statement, made via email to Rebecca Beach, a Young America's Foundation activist:

November 13, 2005

Dear Rebecca:

I am asking my students to boycott your event. I am also going to ask others to boycott it. Your literature and signs in the entrance lobby look like fascist propaganda and is extremely offensive. Your main poster "Communism killed 100,000,000" is not only untrue, but ignores the fact that CAPITALISM has killed many more and the evidence for that can be seen in the daily news papers. The U.S. government can fly to dominate the people of Iraq in 12 hours, yet it took them five days to assist the people devastated by huricane Katrina. Racism and profits were key to their priorities. Exxon, by the way, made $9 Billion in profits this last quarter--their highest proft margin ever. Thanks to the students of WCCC and other poor and working class people who are recruited to fight and die for EXXON and other corporations who earning megaprofits from their imperialist plunders. If you want to count the number of deaths based on political systems, you can begin with the more than a million children who have died in Iraq from U.S.-imposed sanctions and war. Or the million African American people who died from lack of access to healthcare in the US over the last 10 years.

I will continue to expose your right-wing, anti-people politics until groups like your won't dare show their face on a college campus. Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors and fight for just causes and for people's needs--such freedom fighters can be counted throughout American history and they certainly will be counted again.

Prof. John Daly

A college professor advocates soldiers turning their weapons on superior officers? In effect calling for military personnel to commit treason? This man does not need to be teaching at any college. He needs to be arrested and tried for treason.

Ideas are stronger and more powerful than any standing army for the simple reason that a sword thrust through the heart cannot kill it. For it is like a virus; spreading from man to man, mind to mind. It cannot be laid siege to. It cannot be starved, nor blinded, maimed, or strangled. The only thing that will kill an idea, is a larger, more powerful idea.

This impetus for my eloquence? The following post by Jamal at Opinionated Voice blog....

"Amidst much conjecture about the existence of Osama bin Laden and rifts in al-Qa`eda, a collection of the Saudi's statements has been published detailing the Most Wanted Terrorist's desire for the the US to convert to Islam, ditch its constitution, abolish banks, jail homosexuals, bar women from appearing in the press and sign the Kyoto climate change treaty. These statements I fully agree with and would lead to making the world a better place. In fact many agree with him on the idea to sign the Kyoto Treaty. However, he's already a legend and the publishers of the book are money motivated, without a care for the consequences. I'd much rather hear about a book encouraging the worldwide community of Muslims to educate themselves toward positions of power."

[emphasis mine]

This is why the War on Terror must be fought. It must be fought until the enemy tires, and grows sick of bloodshed... and not one moment before. Would somebody please wake the sleeping masses!!! Better for the world if Islam converted to Christianity.

I have nothing more to add the "Bush Lied" debate. That doesn't mean I won't post articles I find compelling, such as this one from The Arizona Republic...

Herd 'em or scold 'em Members of the 'Bush Lied' club rush to condemn

Nov. 17, 2005 12:00 AM

Are they liars? Or sheep?

Members of Congress now taking turns at re-writing the history of the advent of the war in Iraq are presenting the public with a choice.

Either the words they spoke in the months and years prior to the invasion of Iraq - words that certainly appeared emphatic and uncoerced - were lies that spilled from their own politically motivated calculations about the public's temperament.

Or they were sheep, vacuously sopping up presidential interpretations - from both the Clinton and Bush administrations - of intelligence reports about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

The list of opportunists feeding at the wounds of a now-unpopular president is lengthy, growing and increasingly distressing in its unspoken message: that their dislike or hatred of President Bush is so consuming that congressional critics will risk exposing themselves as dupes or liars to thwart him politically.

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.

I don't care who you are, who you write for, what you write is your business. In America you're entitled to your own opinion, and that's as it should be. This is America after all.

Dick Meyer at CBS can also say whatever he wants. He lives in America. As well, CBS can support whatever opinion they choose, until they find themselves fighting their way out of their own "Credibility Gulch." For a network that consistently denies that Big Media is institutionally biased, this article doesn't step one foot in that direction. But again, the Meyer piece is Opinion. Everyone needs to understand this.

Sadly, too much "opinion" makes the front page-- above the fold. And that's what's wrong with media today. With CBS' 60 Minutes you can count on a reliable dose of opinion at the end of each hour-- nothing wrong with that, but at least you know what it is. But again, when opinion makes front page-- the opening headlines --where does that leave the viewer, the reader, the hearer? How does the public know what is, and is not news?

It is my firm belief that the American Viewer, Reader, and Hearer cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. It is further my belief that Big Media understands this, and exploits it. This is what agenda driven Talking Heads do, and they're very good at it.

"Some [Democratic Senators], probably many, simply want to humiliate President Bush by denying him success -- and then reap the electoral bonanza that will likely follow. I'm sure there are some senators who sincerely believe retreat and defeat is in the best interest of our country. But principled or unprincipled, their objective is the same: Getting out of Iraq is more important to them, than staying and succeeding."

"Oh, that America might see the last of these fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy: Unwholesome in their birth; repugnant and stench-forming in their decline."

"Mr. President, don't believe a word of their legislative prose. They have defeat in their hearts, and they mean you ill. Stand and fight with veto pen and executive order in hand. Rally with defiant words those of us who would yet be your honored supporters. Let the long suffering people of Iraq know that you will fight furiously for their redemption, and will be deaf to the impleadings of the weak and defeatist here in America."

Personal Note: How could I possibly add to that?! Except to say, "Amen."

Winner of this quarters "Medal for Free and Original Thought"For his remarks on the Senate Floor - November 15, 2005

"It is no surprise to my colleagues that I strongly supported the war in Iraq. I was privileged to be the Democratic cosponsor, with the Senator from Virginia, of the authorizing resolution which received overwhelming bipartisan support. As I look back on it and as I follow the debates about prewar intelligence, I have no regrets about having sponsored and supported that resolution because of all the other reasons we had in our national security interest to remove Saddam Hussein from power Â a brutal, murdering dictator, an aggressive invader of his neighbors, a supporter of terrorism, a hater of the United States of America. He was, for us, a ticking time bomb that, if we did not remove him, I am convinced would have blown up, metaphorically speaking, in America's face.

"I am grateful to the American military for the extraordinary bravery and brilliance of their campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. I know we are safer as a nation, and to say the obvious that the Iraqi people are freer as a people, and the Middle East has a chance for a new day and stability with Saddam Hussein gone...."

The Medal for Free and Original Thought is awarded to those individuals who display honest, personal belief, free of political bias or expediency, whose remarks originate from the mind of the recipient, and above all else express a desire for doing what is right.

Eligibility Requirements-- This award is based on a single expression of Free and Original Thought, not on a Pattern of such thought. The Medal is awarded to anyone, great or small, who displays a recorded (which can be quoted, and/or linked to from a verifiable source) moment of Free and Original Thought. Recipients can win this Prize as often as their remarks display Free and Original Thought. This Prize is awarded quarterly.

In a word, or turn of phrase, "Disturbingly Compelling." A seemingly random examination of the importance of making and holding on to memories. If I were any more of a masochist I'd add it to my DVD collection. It's not a bad movie; far from it, but not something a rational person would willingly revisit more than once every decade or so.

I am tired of the whole "Bush Lied" debate. To quote another blogger, in this respect, 'I do not have opinions, I have convictions...' and I understand all too well the duplicitous campaign the Democratic Left now wages against this nation and its President. They want power. They will lie, cheat and steal to get it, and they don't care how the country is hurt by their handiwork.

Nothing I say here will change anyone's mind. No comment left here will change mine. And I'm reminded of the reason I began doing this in the first place-- to give myself an outlet, not anyone else. Comments are generally welcome, but they won't change anything. I don't aspire to be among the great thinkers of our day, I have more important things to occupy my time-- more important things to worry about.

I have nothing more to say on this and a number of other subjects. The argument is beaten as soundly as any dead horse could be, and I'm tired of wearing the inevitable gore that comes with participation.

Unless you've been hiding under your bed, you know that Democrats have stepped up their campaign to convince the American people that over two thousand young men and women of the American armed forces died in Iraq for one reason and for one reason only, Bush lied. The problem with this "Bush lied" charge is that Democrats know full well that it simply is not true. The issue for Democrats though is not whether or not the charge is true, but whether or not they can convince the American people that it is true. For politicians ... and I'm referring to politicians on both sides of the aisle ... the truth is whatever you can convince the people that it is. The problem with this particular attempt to create a new truth is that it is undermining our war on terror and endangering the men and women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq...

It is not the job of the United States Congress to prosecute War; that is the job of the United States President. Congress merely sanctions-- or not --via a "declaration" of war, and then funds-- or not --the effort, but it is not the decision of the Congress to go to War. That is the President's alone. Again, Congress can choose not to fund the effort, but realistically, they run several risks doing this.

Yet Congressmen and Senators today have hit upon the idea that they would somehow make better generals than those Generals produced by our Armed Forces-- the worlds most capable Military today --and this notion is quite frankly, baffling to me. Do we really want men and women whose only thought every few years is reelection, to be in charge of prosecuting a war? What happens if a constituency, having lost 200 or more soldiers decides their loss in the war is no longer worth the stated goal of the war effort? Does the Politician acquiesce to their demands out of fear he may lose his upcoming election, or does he tell his constituents this war is worth every life lost if it protects their childrens future? Realistically, the Politician bows to fear, and begins to voice his dissent in Congress or in the Senate, and making a name for him or herself in the Left-Leaning Media.

Presidents, especially second-term Presidents, are free of this fear. They will never run for another public office, and therefore the only fear they are subject to is that of Legacy: How will their term(s) in office be perceived by future generations? Politicians too must worry about Legacy, but it's far easier for Politicians to scoot around this fear, especially if they are Democrat, as they pretty much own all major media outlets, with the exception of FOX.

As the Media willingly protects Democrats from criticism they make themselves culpable for the injuries inflicted on this nation, its people, its morale, its public image, and its well-being. The Media destroyed any hope of winning Vietnam-- Thank You Mister Cronkite! They helped destroy a sitting President. They coddled the inept Carter, until it could no longer be denied that he was Unfit for command. The Media swooned and revelled in orgasmic joy on an almost daily basis during Clinton's 2 terms, willing to forgive adultery, proven lies, and Perjury before a Federal Grand Jury.

What we are left with is a sychophantic mouthpiece that daily Gushes with praise at every democratic senator and congressman, taking every word that comes from their lips as graven in stone-- scribed by God Himself, and delivered down from the sacred heights of Mt. Olympus where the Erudite dwell and debate the well-being of all Americans.

But give us a war that is not only necessary, but unconventional in that no border can be ascribed as belonging to the enemy, who wears no uniform, belongs to no nation but the Nation of Islam, and suddenly it is the President who is guilty of perjury. Not Democrats. Here is a President almost universally maligned as an unlearned, ignorant buffoon who somehow cajoled and pulled the wool over every single wise and learn`ed Democratic eye. He is also a usurper to the throne, having won his high office by stealing an election.... But only a fool would buy it; Democrats are far more intelligent that Republicans. And that's exactly what the Media thinks of the average American; we are fools, and don't know what to believe. Only they are capable of sailing the treacherous waters of Truth, and we are expected to bow to their mastery, their skill and every word they utter.

Don't be a fool! The Media and the Democratic Left want to see the President fall. They actively seek his demise. They want him publicly embarrassed and flogged by public opinion not just in this country but around the world. If this is not treason, especially in light of their own culpability, I don't know what is. How do these desires support the war effort? How do these desires support our military? How do these desires say anything other than "We want America to lose this war. We are willing to sacrifice not only the 3000 lives lost at GroundZero, but 2000+ more"? Democrats and the Media are actually willing to see America fail, if they can get even with George W. Bush. This is as true a definition of "TREASON" as any I've heard. They are traitors, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't be a fool! Learn to think for yourself! Not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, not as a Christian, not as an Athiest. Learn to reason the truth for yourself! There is a revolution going on in this country right now. Does anyone out there see it? The Media does, the Democrats do, and they're scared to death of what the outcome may hold for their futures. This New Media; the Blogosphere, the availability of opinion and information available to the average person today is astonishing! The Old Guard no longer holds a monopoly on the minds of the people. Politicians can no longer guarantee the things they say will be accepted as gospel. So they try to frighten and create a sense of awe and wonder in what remains of their constituency. To revisit the hackneyed analogy,

"Pay no attention to the man behind the screen! I am the Great and Powerful Oz!!!"

There comes a time in every person's life, when we must choose what to believe. And there are only two choices; you either choose truth, or you choose a lie. Sooner or later you too will have to make that decision, and you have to take care in that decision, for you will surely have to live with the consequences.

"And why are they shocked? Because the terrorists blew up Jordanians. As long as Islamic terrorists blew up men, women and children who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, American, Australian and black Sudanese, the Arab and larger Muslim worlds were not particularly disturbed. In fact, Palestinians, who comprise the majority of Jordan's population, celebrated when Jews were blown up at Passover seders and at weddings..."

"...for the time being, the sight of charred and dismembered Arab families at a wedding has trumped the anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's killers."

" "Munder Moomeni, a 38-year-old former soldier who lives next to Zarqawi's house, 13 Ramzi Street, described his former neighbour as 'a bastard.' 'By killing Jordanians here in Jordan, civilian Jordanians going to a wedding, they did something that not even a Jew would do,' "

Personal Note: And this is what is wrong with the Muslim world; they are not shocked at the same atrocities visited upon other peoples by adherents of their own faith. There is something fundamentally wrong with this picture, so wrong in fact that no amount of moralizing can ever justify it or quantify it. No People deserves such treatment, and until Islam enters the rational world, she will always be seen as a rogue religion, and she will continue to be vilified by those who do not share her values-- Which of late seems to include violence, brutality, intolerance, and degradation of women. None of which speaks to a supposed Islamic Enlightenment.

Many have said it already, and more eloquently than I, but it's about damn time the president stood up and called out the biggest bunch of cowards and liars in recent congressional history.

It is not a stretch to claim the Democratic Left is engaged in an effort to re-write the history of this war. It is not a stretch to say they are all liars if they cling to their hackneyed talking points, of "Bush Lied, Bush Mislead, Bush Deceived, Bush Manipulated, Bush Cherry-Picked..." It is not a stretch to say it is the Democratic Left who is guilty of "misrepresenting" and "misleading" and even "manufacturing" evidence against this president. Nor does it take an intellectual genius to see through their subterfuge. It does, however, take a mind willing to honestly weigh the evidence, and sadly, there are exceedingly few on Looney Left so willing.

If President Bush lied, then it must also be true that the Democratic Left is so intellectually deficient as to disqualify them from any further service to this Nation. They should all resign. But that will never happen; they have a war to win, and it's not the same war our troops are fighting overseas. The Left fights a malicious war of hatred and deceit; they are out for revenge, pure and simple. And they are blinded by their hatred. Any man or woman who cannot think, cannot see, and cannot hear truth, has no business serving this country in public office. Nor do they deserve a voice with which to sway the masses with their hate-filled delusions.

The Democratic Left wants to cry foul when their Patriotism is questioned? Well, let's examine their patriotism. They're lying about how and why we went to war in Iraq. They use the body count as a celebratory tool to undermine the war effort. They claim to support the troops, but not the mission...

...and just how does one do that? Support the troops but not the War? By calling the president a monster? By calling him a liar? By casting our military in the mold of a few bad apples at Abu Ghraib? By writing OpEd's about Koran abuse at Guantanamo-- proven to be false --resulting in riots which killed hundreds? By aiding and abetting the enemy in Iraq? For dragging the name of the United States Military, and its Commander in Chief, through the mud in view of the entire world? How does that support the troops? How does San Francisco's refusal to allow the United States Military access to public schools "support the troops"? How does publicly agreeing with the world that America is the worst offender of human rights in the world today support our troops? How does this support our troops who have to live with the consequences of such bilious tripe? Just where, exactly, does their patriotism lie? In supporting our military? Or supporting their own campaign of lies with one goal in mind... To destroy a president they deem illegitimate?

You're damned right I question their patriotism! If anyone deserves to be "frog-marched" in handcuffs out of any building, it's the unpatriotic, and treasonous Democratic Left!

...and Joe Wilson. Now there's a liar!

You want to prove you're patriotic? Stop celebrating "milestone" benchmarks in the loss of American men and women serving their country. A country, I might add, YOU claim to love.

Or has the world truly become a wild place, and full of violence? Consider: The Great Wall of China was built to repel invaders. Hadrian's wall was built to repel invading Celts. Now, Palestinian violence has forced Israel to construct its own-- though it pales in comparison --security wall to thwart homicide bombers.

There's lot's of talk around the country, even in Congress, about building a wall along our southern border, ostensibly to stem the flow of illegal immigration, but in fact, the darker purpose is to close a porous, poorly defended border that could well give easy access to terrorists whose sole purpose in regard to America is to bring her to her knees, before striking off her head.

And now India is fast-tracking the completion of its own fence along its 2,500 mile border with Bangladesh, to keep out militant groups linked to al Qaeda.

No wall built today will ever rival the mother of all walls, but their purpose will always be the same: To repel terrorism and the violence it employs.

Fear drives the construction of walls. And there seems to be a growing number of things to fear each day.

"Yellowcake, secret training of terrorists by the Iraqis, secret meetings in Europe, weapons of mass destruction was all manipulated, made up," --Sen Harry Reid

"I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks - and we should not minimize the risks - we must authorize the president to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat," --Sen Rockefeller, October 2002

Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who Democrats applaud for indicting Libby, told the Sept. 11 commission that during his investigation of the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, he found evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq had been talking to one another.

At least that's what I think, and thankfully I'm not the only one. Yet regrettably, the Media gives the guy a free pass at every turn. This guy's a snake, and no one seems to care.

What the powers-that-be in Media and on the Left do care about is "Getting Bush." And they are so blinded by that one consuming desire, they can't see anything else.... Like the glaring inconsistencies in Joseph Wilson's story.

But everything comes out in the wash sooner or later. In the end Mr. Wilson, and his Media conspirators will be exposed. And I will be neither gleeful nor sorrowful. Just satisfied.

Here's some commentary by Dennis Byrne...

November 8, 2005Wilson Also Deserves Some of the ScrutinyBy Dennis Byrne

Like children in a fever to dive into their Christmas presents, Senate Democrats can't wait for a new Senate report on pre-Iraq war intelligence failures. They even forced the Senate into a rare secret session last week because, ironically, of their supposed determination to make government more transparent.

It's almost as if they have forgotten that the Senate's bipartisan Select Committee on Intelligence already issued a report last year on the quality of the intelligence. The one that should have--but hasn't--stopped former ambassador Joseph Wilson from recklessly claiming that President Bush's "lies" and "disinformation" led us into war. The same report that convincingly demonstrated that any prewar intelligence misinformation was the result of organizational failure or incompetence, not evil intent.

1. Set Oven to 3752. Rub sliced fish with garlic and saute with non-stick spray at medium heat. Set Aside.3. Add butter to skillet and saute remaining garlic with onion, bell pepper & mushrooms with spices. Remove and let drain.4. Now saute Zucchini (skillet should still be moist enough for this)

Don't ask me about nutritional facts as I pulled this recipe out of thin air. But the worst things in this dish are the butter and flour tortillas -- and the cheese if the Fat-Free variety is unavailable. The best thing is, it don't taste like fish at all.

Arrived at 8:12 for an 8:30am Appt.Eye's were numbed & dialated by 8:20Waited in "the Library" for 1 hour, 15 min. only to hear,

"You're gonna have to get back on the Diamox if you want this to improve..."

Diamox. No thanks. Milk that tastes sour? Sweet that tastes spoiled? Bitter that tastes sweet? Salty that tastes bitter? What is there left to eat? Will I even be able to eat? The only other alternative is to lose a minumum of 20 lbs.

A couple of weeks ago, a local state representative was invited to come to my son’s high school government class. I assume it was to have someone who’s actually in government to describe the policy process from a first hand perspective. He's lucky it didn't really get "political...."

Under normal circumstances (like talking to adults) this kind of presentation would be acceptable as the recipients of the message could apply life experience and take from the speech what they would. Children however, have no such life experience and from their perspective, the presenter must be correct. In their reality, the teacher is always right since they give out the grades that determine that child’s future.

Liberals, who dominate the teaching profession, are obviously abusing this position of authority, and they’re cowards for doing so. There’s any number of conservatives who’d be honored to debate a teacher in the classroom setting. If you’re confident about your positions, why not defend them with someone who can at least fight back. Then again, that would take courage. Brainwashing kids does not.

That was Skynyrd, by the way. It seemed apropos... and I do live in Alabama.

BUT WHATEVER WE DO ... LET'S NOT TELL FOLKS WHO'S BEHIND ALL THIS

It was the 11th night of rioting and attacks in and around Paris last night. Turn on almost any broadcast or cable newscast and you'll hear all about it. Thousands of busses and cars have been burned. Police are being shot at. Paramedics are being attacked. By who? By "youths." That's pretty much it. All of this trouble is being caused by "youths." Now that we've reached the 11th night of this violence, you will hear the occasional newscaster actually say the "M" word. Every once in a while ... but very sparingly ... someone will breach the walls of political correctness and actually let you know that these "youths" are Muslims. French police have discovered a bomb-making factory in Paris. These rioters are chanting "It's Baghdad here." France, the leader of the Axis of Weasels, is under attack. Paris, home to those who condemned America for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, is under siege -- by Muslim jihadists -- by the very people France tried so hard to protect and appease....

I'm sorry Jamal, French Muslims may not have started the riots, but it appears they’re doing a fine job of perpetuating the chaos… 300 towns now experiencing the impact of Frances extremely ill-conceived policy of exclusion…

"Come to France, Ooo la la! Enjoy the life of a happy Frenchman, yes. Now stay in your neighborhoods and let the real French breathe the fresh air of opportunity..."

France now is paying the price, and the rest of Europe can thank her for being "spineless" "surrender monkeys", as others here have said.

Be thankful you live in England. There’s a growing problem there as well, but it hasn’t reached the level that France has. And no, I do not forget my own country. This problem is exists everywhere.

I am thankful for your perspective. Your heart appears to be in the right place.Apologies for my comment at your site.

This from "Riverbend" -- a girl-blogger in Iraq. Surprisingly, not entirely anti-American, but extremely fatalistic, and saddening. Suffice it to say, America, for all her advisors, foreign and domestic, don't seem to have a genuine grasp of what the people in Iraq will face without the presence American soldiers. Either that or America chooses not to see the situation through the eyes of one who will have to live with America's decisions when America pulls out. Can anyone say 'coitus interruptus'?

Here then are the very real fears of a very real Iraqi.

Sunday, November 06, 2005

Movies and Dreams...

My parents, like many Iraqis of their generation and educational background, discouraged too much tv. When E. and I were younger, they were vigilant about the type of shows and movies we were allowed to watch. They didn’t like for us to be exposed to propaganda- Arab or Western- and any programs containing excessive violence, foul language or sexual content were prohibited. On the other hand, all types of books were encouraged. I grew up reading books by authors ranging from Jane Austen to John LeCarre, from Emily Bronte to Maxim Gorky to Simone de Beauvoir… nothing was ever off-limits.

Where movies and television were concerned, there were times when something would slip through their censorship- or rather, there were times when WE would slip through their censorship and watch something at a friend’s house or at a relative’s house, etc.

I believe everyone remembers a movie or two, seen during childhood, that remained ingrained in their memory for years. For me, there were two such events....

Kevin Drum, in a little piece called "Marketing the War" paints a reasonable picture with little reason behind it. As I am commenting on 2 pages of download, I am without any links that may have been offered in the original. So, taking it as it is, I am forced to read into it. That is what language is for, after all, to read into speech or writings any intent inherent in the language presented.

Mr. Drum is quick to cede that everyone "believed" Saddam had WMD's; that he had biological, chemical, and a progressing nuclear program. How magnanimous of him, considering it's extremely difficult to deny all the assertions made on the subject by Democrats, Republicans, and foreign intelligence agencies. These people said what they said, believing what they said to be true. If their beliefs somehow turned out to be misguided in the end-- and I'm not convinced they were --it doesn't amount to all these people being liars, or manipulators of intelligence.

So, having graciously ceded to what couldn't be denied Mr. Drum then makes assertions based on assumption, as no corroboration of his personal opinions are offered. The word "personal" is important. This is what he believes, and returning to an earlier point, it doesn't amount to Mr. Drum being a liar. Blinded perhaps, but not a liar.

As to his conclusions, consider the following statements...

"Was there widespread belief in September 2002 that Iraq had an active WMD program? Yes."

And this is where Mr. Drum loses me. This is pure speculation on his part. He has absolutely nothing more than his own personal belief to back this up. Anyone interested in Truth must understand that an opinion is nothing without fact to back it up. It is simply not enough that others believe as well to make an opinion into a true fact. Opinions are, quite simply, not facts.

"["The First Casualty" by John Judis & Spencer Ackerman] was the article that apparently first sent Scooter Libby into hysterics and began the campaign to smear Joe Wilson and expose his wife as a CIA agent."

Note the following words; "apparently", "hysterics", "campaign", "smear", and "expose", all of which are, again, assumptions based on personal belief, not cold hard fact. Mr. Drum could not know what article Scooter read, and whether or not that article precipitated "hysterics", and a "campaign" to "smear" Joe Wilson, and "expose" his CIA agent of a wife.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Left in this country gloms onto the "truths" of their leaders without question. Contrary to what BenT may think, this is something I don't do. Yes, I listen to Rush, Hannity, and Snow. But I also listen to Boortz-- who is anything but a Bush fan. I read OpEds from Liberal Democrats as well as Conservative Republicans, and I try very hard to be fair. I don't always succeed, but that's just because I'm human. But I don't take anything on blind faith, except God-- Fault me on that if you will, but that's not the issue here. Mr. Drum can get away with what he does, as can Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Kennedy, and all the others, because for the most part... For the MOST part, their followers never question anything that comes out of their mouths. So be it. But that's not me.

BenT can hand me articles all day long and still not answer the underlying question with a definitive, "Yes! Bush and all his cronies DID lie about WMD's." You see I can hand him articles all day long exposing the Left's desperate attempts to paint the Republican president as a Liar, and destroy his presidency-- I have far more proof of that than he has for his belief that Bush lied. And as long as the Left continues to turn a blind eye to the obvious lies of Mr. Joe Wilson himself, why should I sit meekly by and let the enemies of Truth continue to poison whatever goodness is left in this country?

Though I recommend you read the entire article, for full context, here are 6 Quotes:

"To believe that the White House concocted a fable about WMD in Iraq, you would have to believe in a massive conspiracy involving not only the Bush people, but both Bill Clinton’s and George Bush’s CIA director, George Tenet; Bush’s first term secretary of state, Colin Powell; Clinton’s secretary of state, Madeleine Albright; Clinton’s key NSC Persian Gulf adviser, Kenneth Pollack; and numerous WMD experts at the United Nations... How many people, for instance, know that Wilson himself, the Democrats’ big stick to beat up on Bush, believed that when the war began Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?"

"Was Clinton’s seasoned expert on the Gulf [Kenneth M. Pollack] also in on the Bush plan to fabricate evidence? The conspiracy buffs may think so, for in 2002, when Bush was in office and worrying about what to do about Saddam, Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm. The subtitle was more provocative: The Case for Invading Iraq."

"George Bush had been assured by Tenet that there was “slam dunk” evidence against Saddam, so the secretary of State descended upon the CIA in Mclean, Va., spending four difficult days sifting through the intelligence, sometimes with his deputy, Richard Armitage."

"After the final rehearsal in Washington, Tenet, according to Bob Woodward’s most thorough report, “announced that he thought their case was ironclad and he believed that they had vetted each sentence [of Sec. Powell's address to the UN].” "

"Powell then informed Tenet that the CIA director would have to sit behind him at the UN, a visible sign that he was backing the secretary of State’s findings."

"Those who say Bush “lied us into war” based on “manufactured” intelligence are either ignorant or malicious. Either way, they are dangerously undermining whatever chance we still have of rescuing Iraq from chaos and catastrophe."

Finally, as with Mr. Drum, don't take my word for anything. Read, Think Critically, Compare, and then decide for yourself.

Joe Wilson has a lot of questions to answer, and it's a disgrace to our Media that they give him a free pass. That's because the media has an agenda of it's own, and why it's jokingly refered to as the 3rd major party in American politics. The media can't be trusted. If you want the truth you'll have to find it for yourself. Good hunting.

SenatorReid thinkshe's theMessiah ?!?Then whyam I theone beingcrucified?I mean,really!?!I'm thePresidentof the United States of America, I don't have, uh... ... um... ... I have better things to do than play, uh, be a pincushion for Democratic attacks.

While sitting in the audio booth waiting to cut the 6pm tease, Bob Schieffer, CBS' new man in the "Big Chair," teased his own show with a reference to President Bush's trip to Argentina for the Summit of the America's. Primarily the protestors, whom Schieffer characterized as "Leftist Inspired." The pictured crowd was very large, carrying placards, posters, signs and banners. Wearing flags, t-shirts and banners decidedly Anti-Bush. Some of these protestors fired slingshots, tossed Molotov cocktails and burned American flags, all in demonstration of the United States, and her President.

Bob Schieffer actually called these protestor's "Leftist Inspired!" That would never happen here in the states. Here they would be "Members of the Growing Anti-War Movement." Here they would be "Opponents of the President and his policies," using slurs like "Liar," "Idiot," and "Dangerously Hitler-esque." But they would never be called Leftists, and certainly not Liberal. That the protestors would be overwhelmingly Democrat, no mention would be made. In the eyes of the media, there is no Extreme Left Wing in the Democratic Party. Only Republicans are labeled "Extreme."

Does anyone see the Hypocrisy? When foreigners do it, they're Leftist, when they're Americans their Anti-War. Schieffer does make reference to Hugo Chavez's socialist leanings and his popularity among the crowd reflected in the banners and flags. But look at the face on some of these flags... Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Marxist Revolutionary... And murderer.

Good Grief! Are these folks serious? They worship a Marxist butcher while vilifying a man who would go to their aid should natural disaster strike their country. Hugo Chavez, another Castro in the making whatever Carter says, is as delusional as his mentor. The entire scene at the Summit was chaos. It is clear that the authorities had no control whatsoever of the streets. Their sole purpose today-- seemingly --was to keep the protestors away from the dignitaries.

It was Anarchy in the streets. Protestors, Rioters, throwing rocks, smashing windows in downtown department stores, looting, and revelry of the basest sort.

What does it say about a society that has so little control over its populous? What does it say about our own society when the Media Machine can't be honest enough to tell it like it is without injecting its own ideological preferences. What does it say about America when our own government is split down the middle, each side at each others throats? The rift in our own society is a product of the rift in Washington, and the Media is directly responsible. Like Jerry Springer, who deliberately pits two or more dysfunctional parties against each other on a national stage, the media misconstrues, prevaricates, and flatly omits the truth, waiting for the kicking, screaming, and hair-pulling that's sure to come. It's disgraceful.

Dan Rather can warn university students in Maine about the "New Media" and it's "Agenda Driven" purveyors, but he can't see his own Agenda, or that of his ilk. I'm tempted to call it hypocrisy, but the more shite I hear spilling from his and the rest of Main Stream Media's lips, the more pity I feel for how completely self-righteous and delusional they've become.